The Virgin of the Rocks Renaissance Blog The Virgin of the Rocks. It seems strange that in The Virgin of the Rocks we see two complete versions of a subject from an artist who failed to finish so many of his commissions. Leonardo's Louvre version of 1483/1486 is the earlier of the two works while the National Gallery painting is dated 1495/1508. Both paintings are oil on panel but the Louvre version has been transferred to canvass. The painting may have suffered some damage during the transfer process but it's condition is now stable. The Leonardo exhibition at the National Gallery in London (Leonardo da Vinci, Painter at the Court of Milan) displayed these two works together in the same room for the first time ever. Although never achieving the same monumental impression gained by seeing the works in the flesh, I have placed images of the paintings side by side so that direct comparisons of the similarities and differences can be made. The Virgin of the Rocks was commissioned (not long after Leonardo's move to Milan) by the Franciscan Confraternity in the Church of San Francesco Grande.

Leonardo was assisted by two local artists, the Predis brothers, their task was to create an altarpiece for the recently completed chapel dedicated to the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. The Predis brothers completed two side panels while da Vinci painted the centre panel. Shortly after the altarpiece was finished the artists became embroidered in a dispute about payment resulting in the artists threatening to sell the work to a rival bidder. It is likely that this dispute resulted in the making of the second version of the Virgin of the Rocks, the one now in the National Gallery in London, and in fact it was the London Virgin that was placed in the chapel in San Francesco Grande. The original Paris version was quickly sold to an art lover soon after completion. The Virgin or the Rocks. Leonardo da Vinci. (s) 199 × 122 cm, 78.3 × 48.0 Louvre, Paris. The Virgin of the Rocks. Leonardo da Vinci. (s) 189.5 × 120 cm, 74.6 × 47.25 National Gallery, London.

The subject of the paintings is a legendary meeting between the infant Jesus and John the Baptist on the flight into Egypt. The Madonna is at the centre of the composition with Jesus seated with the angel Uriel his arm raised in blessing, John's hands are seen clasped in prayer. Personal Opinion :- I have seen both of these paintings and don't really have a favourite, although the London version seems to be more tightly finished than the one in the Louvre, I like them both. How's that for sitting on the fence? The brushwork and contrast between light and dark (chiaroscuro) is typical Leonardo and standing before these paintings you do feel the power and the presence of the great artist. It really is shiver up the spine time! Enjoy.﻿ The Side Panel Musician Angels. Angel playing the Violin. Ambrogio de Predis, oil on wood, 118.7 x 61cm. National Gallery, London (s) These are the two side panels of the Altarpiece, the Angel with the Violin is the left panel and the Lute playing Angel is the right panel.

The Angel in Green's attribution to the Predis brothers, Ambrogio and Evangelista, has been disputed in recent times. Possible candidates for the work include Marco d' Oggiono and Francesco Galli, however the debate continues! Virgin of the Rocks. Stylized View of the Altarpiece. (s) This diagram with the paintings in their correct positions gives some insight of how the altarpiece would have looked. Mini Gallery. Jesus and Uriel (Paris) (s) Jesus and Uriel (London) (s) St John (Paris) (s) St John (London) (s) Detail of Uriel (above) and right is a detail of the Christ Child, both from the London version. (s) In the London version halos have been added as has John the Baptist's staff, also John's is pose has changed slightly from the Louvre version. The angel Uriel no longer points at the figure of John and these changes are probably intended to clarify the identity of the two infants. This resolves and dismisses any suggestion that the child closest to the Madonna is Jesus and not John the Baptist. You can purchase a copy of the London version through The National Gallery.

Read Tamsyn Taylor's excellent Blog giving an alternative view of the dates and painting order for the Virgin of the Rocks. Author(s): Séverine Laborie Leonardo’s emblematic and complexly symbolic The Virgin of the Rocks celebrates the mystery of Incarnation in portrayals of the Virgin Mary, Christ and Saint John the Baptist. For the first time, these holy figures, bathed in a gentle light, are set in rocky landscape. The many contemporary copies of the picture attest to the immense popularity of this new vision of the theme. A complex history The Louvre version of the picture was to have been the central part of a polyptych which the Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception commissioned Leonardo and the de Predis brothers to paint for a chapel in the church of San Francesco Grande in Milan in 1483. The other version, now in the National Gallery in London and known to have formerly been in this chapel, and several archive documents indicate that the Louvre painting was never installed there. Its presence in the French royal collection is attested from1627, but several clues suggest it may have been acquired much earlier.

The most convincing hypothesis is that the picture, painted between 1483 and 1486, did not meet with Leonardo’s clients’ full satisfaction, which enabled Louis XII to acquire it around 1500−1503. The second, replacement picture, now in London, may have been painted by Ambrogio de Predis under Leonardo’s supervision between 1495 and 1508. Ambiguous iconography Comparison of the two versions of The Virgin of the Rocks clearly shows the ambiguous iconography of the first, about which much has been written. The identity of the figures may indeed appear unclear due to the absence of attributes and the pre-eminence of the infant Saint John, placed alongside the Virgin Mary, indicated by the archangel Gabriel’s pointing finger and Jesus’s sign of blessing. The desert in which the meeting between the two immaculately conceived children is traditionally depicted has been replaced by a supernatural rocky grotto, water and plants. The mystery of the Incarnation is celebrated by the role of Mary and the precursor John, who in Florentine tradition was one of Jesus’s childhood playmates and already aware of his future sacrifice for mankind.

This prefiguration of Christ’s Passion seems to be echoed by the precipice on the edge of which the Infant Jesus is sitting and the vegetation surrounding him (aconite, palms, iris). A totally innovative composition The Virgin of the Rocks is the first picture Leonardo is known to have produced in Milan and has stylistic similarities with works painted towards the end of his stay in Florence such as The Adoration of the Magi (Florence) and Saint Jerome (Rome), whose aesthetic concepts it develops. The rigorously ordered pyramidal composition does not hinder the movement of the figures, and the painstaking orchestration of their gestures (the superimposition of hands and interplay of looks) takes on a new intensity in the diffuse light which softens outlines without weakening the modeling of the figures. The figures’ natural poses and the omnipresence of the predominantly mineral landscape are highly innovative compared to the affected architecture and hieratic poses of the altarpieces of the period. Yet it was not until 1501, when the cartoon of Saint Anne was first shown in Florence (see INV 776) that these principles were put into practice by other artists.

Bibliography - Léonard de Vinci, Traité de la Peinture, trad. André Chastel, Club des libraires de France, Paris, 1960. - BEGUIN S., Léonard de Vinci au Louvre, Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, Paris, 1983. - ARASSE Daniel, Léonard de Vinci, Le rythme du monde, Hazan, Paris, 1997. - MARANI Pietro. C., Léonard de Vinci, Gallimard/Electa, Paris, 1996. - VIATTE Françoise (dir.), Léonard de Vinci. Dessins et manuscrits, catalogue de l’exposition, Musée du Louvre, 5 mai-14 juillet 2003, éd. Paris, Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 2003, pp. 127-132.

Technical description Leonardo di ser Piero DA VINCI, dit Léonard de Vinci (Vinci, 1452 - Amboise, 1519) La Vierge aux rochers Bois transposé sur toile en 1806 par Hacquin H. : 1,99 m. ; L. : 1,22 m. Collection de François Ier Virgin of the Rocks (article) | Khan Academy Virgin of the Rocks Email There are two versions of Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks (the version in the Louvre was painted first). These two paintings are a good place to start to define the qualities of the new style of the High Renaissance. Leonardo painted both in Milan, where he had moved from Florence. Left: Leonardo da Vinci, The Virgin of the Rocks, c. 1483-86, oil on panel, 199 x 122 cm (Louvre, Paris) right: Leonardo da Vinci, The Virgin of the Rocks, c.

1491-1508, 189.5 x 120 cm, oil on panel, (National Gallery, London) Normally when we have seen Mary and Christ (in, for example, paintings by Lippi and Giotto), Mary has been enthroned as the queen of heaven. Here, in contrast, we see Mary seated on the ground. This type of representation of Mary is referred to as the Madonna of Humility. Mary has her right arm around the infant Saint John the Baptist who is making a gesture of prayer to the Christ child. The Christ child in turn blesses St. John. Mary's left hand hovers protectively over the head of her son while an angel looks out and points to St. John. The figures are all located in a fabulous and mystical landscape with rivers that seem to lead nowhere and bizarre rock formations that recall the Dolomite mountains of northeastern Italy. In the foreground we see carefully observed and precisely rendered plants and flowers. Mary, St. John, Christ and an angel (detail), Leonardo da Vinci, The Virgin of the Rocks, c.

1483-86, oil on panel, 199 x 122 cm (Louvre, Paris) We immediately notice Mary's ideal beauty and the graceful way in which she moves, features typical of the High Renaissance. Filippo Lippi, Madonna and Child, c. 1465, tempera on panel, 92 x 63.5 cm (Uffizi Gallery, Florence) This is the first time that an Italian Renaissance artist has completely abandoned halos. Fra Filippo Lippi reduced the halo to a narrow ring around Mary's head. Clearly the unreal, symbolic nature of the halo was antithetical to the realism of the Renaissance. It was, in a way, a necessary holdover from the Middle Ages: how else to indicate a figure's divinity? But Leonardo found another way to indicate divinity—by giving the figures ideal beauty and grace. After all, we would never mistake Leonardo's group of figures for an ordinary picnic—the way the Lippi's painting of the Madonna and Child with Angels almost looks like a family portrait. With Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks, we are clearly looking at a mystical vision of Mary, Christ, John the Baptist and an angel in heaven.

The Unified Composition We can see that Leonardo grouped the figures together within a geometric shape of a pyramid (a pyramid instead of triangle because Leonardo is very concerned with creating an illusion of space—and a pyramid is three dimensional). He also has the figures gesturing and looking at each other. Both of these innovations serve to unify the composition. This is an important difference from paintings of the Early Renaissance where the figures often looked more separate from one another. Another way to think about this is to look at the angel that Leonardo painted in this work by his teacher Verocchio. Leonardo's angel has a more complex pose. Things that artists were just learning how to do in the Early Renaissance (like contrapposto) are now easy for the artists of the High Renaissance.

Left: Andrea del Verroccio and Leonardo da Vinci, Baptism of Christ, 1472-1475, oil on wood, 177 x 151 cm (Uffizi, Florence); right: Leonardo's angel (detail), Andrea del Verroccio and Leonardo da Vinci, Baptism of Christ, 1472-1475, oil on wood, 177 x 151 cm (Uffizi, Florence) As a result, artists of the High Renaissance can do more with the body—make it more complex, more elegant and more graceful. Similarly, the compositions of the paintings of the High Renaissance are more complex and sophisticated than the compositions of the Early Renaissance—figures interact with gestures and glances, and are often interwoven and set within the shape of a pyramid. Essay by Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker Additional resources Leonardo DaVinci Back To Leonardo da Vinci On the 25th April 1483, Leonardo was contracted to deliver an altarpiece which would decorate the chapel of the Immacolata at the church of San Francesco Grande in Milan.

At the same time Evangelista De Predis was assigned the task of carrying out the gilding, colouring and retouching with his brother Ambrogio to do side panels. Giacomo del Maino was commissioned to carve the framework and once finished the pieces would resemble a miniature temple. Leonardo's contract had a very short deadline which required the painting be delivered before December 8th, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, (this strongly suggests that the artists already had a cartoon prepared), but as was typical of him he failed to comply; this piece then became the source of two lengthy lawsuits which lasted for the many, many years.ï¿½ Two versions of this painting exist, one at the Louvre in Paris and the second held by the National Gallery in London. Experts have studied both closely and consider the Louvre version to be entirely by Leonardo, while the National Gallery version is still the source of some debate. The favoured suggestion is that de Predis and Leonardo collaborated on this painting after he failed to meet his contractual obligations. Others think Leonardo was less involved in the second version and apart from a few touches, he simply oversaw de Predis.

The Louvre painting may have been given by Leonardo to King Louis XII of France in gratitude for settling the law suit between those who commissioned the works and the painters; this would have created the need for a second artwork. Critics continue to take issue with which is the earlier version of Virgin of the Rocks and there is no proof either way. It appears that the style of the Louvre version belongs more to the 1480s and this painting was probably completed early in 1490. The London painting is a more mature work and assuming it is the later version, dates to around 1506. Virgin of the Rocksï¿½ Louvre, Paris The contract was very complicated and carefully designed to ensure the monks received precisely the picture they wanted: Item, Our Lady is the centre: her mantle shall be of gold brocade and ultramarine blue. Item, her skirt shall be of gold brocade over crimson, in oil, varnished with a fine lacquer...Item, God the Father: his gown shall be of gold brocade and ultramarine blue. Item, the angels shall be gilded and their pleated skirts outlined in oil, in the Greek manner.

Item, the mountains and rocks shall be worked in oil, in a colourful manner.... Some changes were made to this description, St. John was introduced while an angel was removed. The side panels required four angels on each, singing and playing harps. Documents recently found show Leonardo's painting was eventually set in place on 18th August 1508, with the final payment for it being made in October of the same year.ï¿½ The Virgin or Madonna of the Rocks is the first work that Leonardo executed in Milan. It addresses the theme of the Immaculate Conception; this being the belief that the Christ child was conceived without original sin on Mary's part. This was a hotly debated topic in Leonardo's day and he was required to convey the purity radiating from the Virgin. In both paintings she was depicted as flat-chested and sitting in a cavern surrounded by phallic rocks and womb images. The setting was perfect for the chapel as it was built over catacombs.ï¿½ The paintings illustrate a popular story of the time. It is that of Jesus meeting an infant John the Baptist, who is in the care of the angel Uriel.

Both are on the run to evade Herod's massacre of innocents. As John pays homage to Jesus he is blessed and the Baptism prophesied; this explains the pool in the foreground of the Louvre version. The plants in Leonardo's works are interesting as they were painted directly from nature during a time when most artists simply copied from the books of herbalists. Leonardo would carefully choose plants for their symbolic value. In the Louvre version of the Virgin of the Rocks, Aquilega, or columbine (dove plants) are beside the Virgin's face; these symbolise the Holy Spirit. Stains on the St. John's wort suggest a martyr's blood, the creeper Cymbalaria symbolises constancy and virtue. Heart-shaped leaves represent love and virtue; sword-shaped leaves, the sword of sorrow which was to pierce Mary's heart and the palm leaves are a symbol of victory.ï¿½ The Louvre version, considered to be wholly by Leonardo, is set in the autumn. The original sketches showed the angel as very feminine; this was changed in the final painting where the angel can be seen as either male or female.

It was first mentioned as being in the royal collection at Fontainebleau in 1625.ï¿½ ï¿½ Virgin of the Rocks National Gallery, London Virgin of the Rocks in London's National Gallery displays a number of changes from the Louvre piece. It brings the viewer closer to the figures, is much bluer and has an air of flowing waters. Other new or changed elements include St. John's cross of reeds; the hand of the angel which no longer points at St. John; the halos and the lighter drapery. Both the halos and the cross were a later addition done by an unknown artist.ï¿½ Portions of the painting are slightly unfinished, the left-hand of the angel being one area. It is also likely that the foreground was intended to be contain a pool similar to that of the Louvre version. The 'plastic' look of this painting almost immediately led scholars to consider it a collaboration. Areas to compare are the rocks which seem badly lit, and the flesh of the children which is flat looking.ï¿½ This version remained in the chapel until 1781; it was then taken to the hospital of Santa Caterina in Milan.

Collectors went to great lengths to obtain Leonardo's works, no matter how small. In 1875 this panel was purchased by the Scottish painter, Gavin Hamilton, who took it from Italy to London, then sold it to the Marquis of Landsdown. It passed into the hands of the Earl of Suffolk, finally entering the National Gallery in 1880. The two side panels of the de Predis brothers joined it in 1898; these depict the musician angels. All three paintings are now displayed together and appear as they would have in the chapel.ï¿½ The dispute over fees and the legal battles with the monks is thought to have been regarding the London copy only. Leonardo and Ambrogio -- Evangelista having died in 1490 -- had sent an appeal for extra funding, pointing out that not only had the project required in the contract been completed, but that the frame alone had absorbed almost all of the entire eight hundred lire fee which had initially been agreed on. In terms of payment they had actually only received one hundred of the twelve hundred lire that were asking. As a result they requested that the "oil painting of Our Lady" be withdrawn, so they could consider selling tit to other interested buyers.

This request was refused and in 1503 Ambrogio tried once again, this time petitioning Louis XII of France, but Leonardo was no longer in Milan and the case was deferred.ï¿½ Things were finally settled on 27th April, 1506. It was determined that the work was, in fact, unfinished with the result that Leonardo was not paid for the first painting, it then being forfeited to the artist. He agreed to do a second work -- or to have another artist do one on his behalf -- and to deliver it on time. The deadline was be two years and for this he would receive half of the additional payment he had asked for the first painting, the sum of two hundred lire.ï¿½ The subject of the Immaculate Conception was a popular one of the day and was taken up again and again by pupils of the Leonardo school.ï¿½ ï¿½ The mystery of Leonardo's two Madonnas - Telegraph Art The mystery of Leonardo's two Madonnas Leonardo da Vinci completed fewer than 20 paintings in his lifetime. So why did he paint the same one twice?

As a new national Gallery exhibition opens, we investigate Image 1 of 2 Virgin of the Rocks, NATIONAL GALLERY VERSION LEONARDO DA VINCI: PAINTER AT THE COURT OF MILAN Photo: The National Gallery Photographic Department/Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) Virgin of the Rocks (1484-5), oil on panel, Musee de Louvre Paris By Andrew Graham-Dixon 8:00AM BST 23 Oct 2011 Painter, sculptor, engineer, architect, botanist, inventor – Leonardo da Vinci was many things, but a fast worker wasn’t one of them. As his patrons frequently complained, it was unusual for him to finish even one painting. So how did it happen that he completed two versions of the very same picture, his strange and dream-like Virgin of the Rocks? It’s a question that has inspired numerous conspiracy theories, and now, for the first time, the two paintings will hang alongside each other, something even the artist himself would never have gazed upon.

Together they will form part of Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan, a new National Gallery exhibition which will be the most extensive display of Leonardo’s paintings ever staged. And, no doubt, inspire numerous more conspiracy theories. But how did the artist come to paint his Virgin in the first place? In 1483, aged 30, da Vinci had arrived in Milan from Florence. He was armed with a formidable artistic reputation, yet dogged by financial worries. He longed to forge a working relationship, as court artist, with the Duke of Milan, Ludovico Sforza, but the latter was at this point too busy waging war against the Venetians. The first work Leonardo executed in Milan, then, was Virgin of the Rocks, an altarpiece for the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception in their chapel at San Francesco Grande. The Virgin of the Rocks is an odd picture, a fusion of fantasy and precise observation. Its curious cave setting may have been inspired by one of Leonardo’s many excursions into northern Italy.

His notebooks contain several descriptions of the region’s awe-inspiring geological formations, such as this entry of 1480: “Drawn by my eager desire I wandered some way among gloomy rocks, coming to the entrance of a great cavern, in front of which I stood for some time, stupefied and uncomprehending such a thing… Suddenly two things arose in me, fear and desire: fear of the menacing darkness of the cavern; desire to see if there was any marvellous thing within.” The darkness of the cave in da Vinci’s famous altarpiece, its overgrown rocks delineated with such care and precision, does indeed contain a marvellous thing: the Virgin Mary, rapt in tender contemplation of the infant Christ and John the Baptist, accompanied by a mysteriously smiling, pointing angel with curly hair and soft, liquid eyes. Leonardo was a famously slow painter, forever allowing himself to be sidetracked into the scientific enquiries detailed in his notebooks. Extraordinary, then, that 21 years later he made an almost identical version of the same theme. Almost. The later picture is more idealised and the angel Uriel is no longer pointing at the St John. But why?

Related Articles Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks paintings united for first time 27 Jul 2011 The unusual nature of Leonardo’s original composition has led to some fairly idiosyncratic interpretations. As early as the 19th century, writers such as John Ruskin and Walter Pater claimed to find in The Virgin of the Rocks evidence of Leonardo’s decadence and his alleged homosexual proclivities. The pointing angel, with flowing locks and enticing eyes, was seen as a disturbingly (or alluringly) androgynous figure, almost as a proxy for Leonardo himself. But when it comes to outlandish exegesis, even the most fanciful of the Victorians could not hold a candle to Dan Brown , author of The Da Vinci Code. In Brown’s decoding, the Louvre picture becomes a secret allegory of Leonardo’s contempt for the established church, complete with a pagan Madonna-Christ role-reversal, an array of phallic rock formations and a concealed scene of occult decapitation in which Mary holds up an invisible head for the angel Uriel to cut off with his dagger-like finger.

The novel suggests that Leonardo got rumbled by his patrons, hence the picture’s rejection by the “nuns” at Milan’s Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception and the painting of a second canvas minus Uriel’s pointed finger. In fact, the answer seems to lie in a financial dispute. Having finished his original Virgin of the Rocks in about 1485, Leonardo decided that the price originally agreed was too low. He petitioned Ludovico, by then his patron, and eventually sold the painting to someone else — for what Leonardo considered to be the fairer price of 100 ducats. At around this point, the doubtless aggrieved Confraternity commissioned Leonardo to create a replacement painting for their empty chapel — the picture now owned by the National Gallery. However, Leonardo’s second Virgin of the Rocks took rather longer to complete. Begun in the 1490s, it was still unfinished by the turn of the century, when the arrival of invading French troops forced Ludovico from power and heralded Leonardo’s hasty departure from Milan.

The artist would only return in 1506 and it wasn’t until 1508 that his second Virgin was (at last) deemed sufficiently finished for final payment to be made. In truth, the painting still contains mysteries — but its secrets are not coded so much as occluded. Because the Louvre has taken an extremely conservative approach to its Leonardos, the French version of The Virgin of the Rocks has undergone little in the way of serious restoration and cleaning. The London version, which has been very recently and extensively cleaned, gives a much truer and brighter sense of Leonardo’s palette and tonal range. The picture used to be thought inferior to the Louvre version and has even been doubted as an autograph picture by the artist’s own hand. But the recent cleaning has brought out such exquisite details as the Madonna’s gentle, solicitous face and her vividly painted drapery that it’s hard to believe anyone other than Leonardo could have been responsible. The London picture is more monumental, in that the figures resemble types rather than individuals. The four figures are larger in relation to the overall scale of the panel and form a more emphatic pyramid. The potentially distracting gesture of the angel, pointing at John the Baptist, has been suppressed.

But there are areas where the handling seems more cursory. The rocks are observed with less geological precision, so that they become almost like stage scenery, while the flowers in the foreground have been depicted in a less delicate and more workmanlike style. Luke Syson, curator of the National Gallery’s forthcoming blockbuster, argues that such simplifications represent a profound change of philosophical approach on the part of Leonardo — that in the later picture, he wanted to place a more idealised Virgin in a more generalised and therefore “perfected” version of the natural world. That may be true but it’s also possible that Leonardo, overburdened with work as usual, simply painted the rocks and plants as quickly as he could. For my money, the Louvre’s remains the more intriguing picture, but until it receives a decent restoration, much of its poetry will remain lost. However the differences are to be accounted for, both pictures are haunting variations on a single theme. The image of a fruitful cave, hidden from the world, may have been intended as a symbol of Mary’s fruitful womb — the womb from which the saviour of mankind, Jesus Christ, has issued.

Enfolded in the Virgin’s cloak, the young John the Baptist kneels in solemn contemplation and receives his blessing, symbolically redeemed from sin and death in the act of worship. The presence of the angel underlines the significance of the encounter. Leonardo’s literary source was an apocryphal legend, according to which the infant Christ met the young St John the Baptist while the Holy Family was fleeing into Egypt to escape Herod’s massacre of the innocents. But the artist transcended the naive storytelling idiom of popular saints’ lives to create an image that is itself, a profound metaphor for the very idea of Christian revelation. In a dark cave, four figures are lit up by divine light — illuminated, as if from within, by a blessed and mysterious truth.

Virgin of the Rocks - Leonardo da Vinci - Gallery - Web gallery of art Virgin of the Rocks Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (1452 - 1519) Virgin of the Rocks 189.5 cm × 120 cm (74.6 in × 47.25 in) National Gallery, London, United Kingdom The Virgin of the Rocks (sometimes the Madonna of the Rocks) is the usual title used for both of two different paintings with almost identical compositions, which are at least largely by Leonardo da Vinci. They are in the Louvre, Paris , and the National Gallery, London. A very similar painting is in the National Gallery ascribed to Leonardo da Vinci, probably before 1508. Assistants, perhaps the de Predis brothers, probably painted some parts of the work. It was painted for the chapel of the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception, in the church of San Francesco Grande in Milan. It was sold by the church, very likely in 1781, and certainly by 1785, when it was bought by Gavin Hamilton, who took it to England.

After passing through various collections, it was bought by the National Gallery in 1880. In June 2005, infra-red reflectogram imaging revealed a previous painting beneath the visible one. This is believed to portray a woman kneeling possibly holding a child with one hand with the other hand outstretched. Some researchers believe that the artist's original intention was to paint an adoration of the infant Jesus. Many other pentimenti are visible under x-ray or infra-red examination. On April 25 1483 Leonardo and the brothers Ambrogio and Evangelista de Predis were commissioned by the Milanese Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception to paint a work celebrating the Immaculate Conception for their new chapel. The contract survives, as does much of the documentation the later disputes over it. There had already been a previous contract in 1480 with Giacomo del Maino, which had evidently not been completed; among the work stipulated in the second contract was the completion and gilding of various carvings for the wooden framework of the altarpiece (none known to survive).

Three paintings were stipulated, a central Virgin and Child and two side panels with angels, described only in the earlier contract with del Maino. These panels are also in the National Gallery, with different provenances the main were painted entirely by the brothers de Predis, according to both modern art historians and a contemporary statement by the brothers in the legal dispute.пїЅ All the work was to be completed by the Feast of the Conception (December 8) 1483, but this did not happen. At some later date the legal dispute began; the main issue being that the main painting was unfinished, and Leonardo had left Milan. Meanwhile the de Predis brothers had completed their portion of the work, and wanted payment. The dispute was settled on April 27, 1506, with the requirement that should Leonardo return to Milan within two years he should complete the painting, and receive further specified sums beyond those in the original contract. This appears to have happened, as a sum was paid to him in 1507. The surviving documentation casts no light on the existence of two versions, nor does it give any support to claims that the clients were unhappy with the subject or treatment of the paintings.

At what point the first version was diverted, or if it was at all, remains unclear, and the subject of many theories. On stylistic grounds some writers, including Martin Davies, feel that 1483 is too late a date for the Louvre version; for the commission Leonardo may have simply repeated a composition he had already produced. natively, the Louvre version may have been painted for the confraternity soon after the commission, and then sold to another buyer. The paintings seem to draw on a legend of the meeting between the baby Jesus and John the Baptist on the flight into Egypt. According to the standard interpretation of the paintings, they depict the Madonna in the centre ushering John towards Jesus, who is seated with the angel Uriel. Jesus is blessing John, who holds out his hands in a gesture of prayer. In the Louvre version, Uriel points towards John while looking out at the viewer. This gesture is missing in the London version. The London version also contains attributes missing the Louvre version, notably haloes and John's traditional cruciform stick. These clarify the identification of the babies Jesus and John. Davies says it is "not certain" if these are contemporary; they may have been added by a later artist.

It is generally believed that the Louvre version is the earlier work, because it is stylistically close to Leonardo's other work of the 1480s. The London painting suggests Leonardo's maturer style, but it is thought likely to have been painted with the assistance of other artists, perhaps the de Predises. Both versions were painted on wood. While the Louvre version was transferred to canvas the original wooden panel, the London painting is still on panel. Several drawings can be related to the paintings, although Leonardo's authorship of many is doubtful. None amount to a full study for either version. The geologist Ann C. Pizzorusso, argues the geological inaccuracies of the London version, unlike the Louvre version, mean it is unlikely to have come Leonardo's own hand. In the novel The Da Vinci Code, written by the American novelist Dan Brown, it is claimed the earlier Louvre version contained hidden symbolism which contradicted orthodox Christian belief, notably the fact that Jesus is shown praying to John rather than the other way round (the novel implies that the baby at the left must be Jesus rather than John, because he is with the Madonna).

It is also claimed that the Virgin appears to be holding an invisible head and that Uriel appears to be "slicing the neck" with his finger. For this reason the painting was rejected by the Church, and a second, more orthodox, version was painted. However, historical evidence shows that these claims are completely unfounded. The Louvre calls this theory "far-fetched" and says "This powerful literary effect is a travesty of art history." The only significant compositional difference between the two versions (excluding the later addition of attributes) is the fact that Uriel no longer points. However this difference may well be explained by the possibility that the distinction between Jesus and John was thought to be insufficiently clear in the earlier picture because John is with the Madonna, and that the pointing gesture directed too much attention to John. As for the painting being "too scandalous" to show in a church, Leonardo and de Predises actually wanted more money the church than had been originally agreed. The church agreed to pay a substantial bonus but not as much as Leonardo and de Predises wanted. So popular (not scandalous) did these paintings prove that some believe that a third version was painted, the one kept today in the Chéramy Collection in Switzerland.

In her 1967 book (published in English in 1985) Angela Ottino della Chiesa cites four paintings derived to some degree The Virgin of the Rocks: the Holy Family and St. John by Bernardino Luini in the Prado in Madrid, the Thuelin Madonna by Marco d'Oggiono in the Thuelin collection in Paris and the Holy Infants Embracing by Joos van Cleve in the Capodimonte Museum in Naples. This image was much copied by Flemish artists such as Joos van Cleve and Quentin Massys - there is a small painting in Chatsworth by the latter. There is also a smaller copy of "The Virgin of the Rocks" (oil on wood) possibly by Joos van Cleve or his circle (private collection Berlin). Hits: Leonardo da Vinci and "the Virgin of the Rocks" Leonardo da Vinci and "the Virgin of the Rocks" The Louvre version and the National Gallery version: Which is the earlier?

Tuesday, 8 November 2011 A different opinion The Virgin of the Rocks is the title of two paintings by Leonardo da Vinci, which were both displayed in 2011 in an exhibition at the National Gallery London : "Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the court of Milan". The exhibition was inspired by the recent restoration of the National Gallery's Leonardo, the Virgin of the Rocks. The exhibition brought together works by the renowned Renaissance master from many different galleries. The highlight of the exhibition was the opportunity for lovers of Leonardo's works to see together the two versions that he painted of the Virgin of the Rocks, that which belongs to the National Gallery, and that which belongs to the Louvre. The National Gallery pre-exhibition statement about the central works in this exciting event is directly quoted here: The Virgin of the Rocks from the Louvre “Leonardo’s ‘Virgin of the Rocks’ paintings united” "The version at the Louvre, which is coming to London, was the first of the two compositions to be painted. Worked on between 1483 and 1486, it was the subject of a dispute about payment with the Milan confraternity which commissioned the work.

The painting is the product of Leonardo’s intense study of the natural world. No landscape quite like it had ever been painted before. The National Gallery's Virgin of the Rocks was painted for the confraternity as a replacement for the Louvre version, which had probably been sold during the earlier dispute. The work demonstrates a change in Leonardo’s artistic ambitions in the years around 1490. It is a composition of the most artful complexity. Displaying the paintings together will provide a unique opportunity, illuminating the painting career of Leonardo as never before."* The website of the Louvre Museum, in discussing the two works, describes the National Gallery's Virgin of the Rocks thus: The second, replacement picture, now in London, may have been painted by Ambrogio de Predis under Leonardo’s supervision between 1495 and 1508. ** The Virgin of the Rocks, National Gallery The Background On the 25th April 1483, the Brothers of the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception commissioned Leonardo da Vinci and two assistants to provide the paintings for an altarpiece for their chapel in the church of San Francesco Grande in Milan.

The commission was for a central image showing the Virgin adoring the Christ Child. Leonardo responded with a composition showing the Virgin and Child with John the Baptist and an angel set in a landscape of rugged rocks, and to become known as the Virgin of the Rocks because of this feature. At some later date a copy was made, and seemingly both are by the hand of the master. The Mystery How there happens to be two versions of the same painting and which is the earlier of the two are questions the answers to which are unknown and have been subject to much speculation. The two paintings are very similar but very different. They are almost the same in form, and in composition. They differ in colour, in details, in lighting and in symbolism. These differences have never been successfully accounted for. All that is known beyond doubt is that the painting of the Virgin of the Rocks now in the Louvre was in France by 1625 and that the painting of the Virgin of the Rocks now in the National Gallery London was sold by the successors of the Confraternity to Gavin Hamilton in 1785. A Conspiracy?

It is considered by art historians that the Virgin of the Rocks which usually hangs in the Louvre Museum is the earlier of the two and is dated at around 1483. The National Gallery's painting is believed to be copy made by the artist and assistants and to date from about the 1495 to 1508. This theory appears to have been universally accepted even though the Virgin of the Rocks which is now in London can be identified as the one that came from Milan, where you would expect the Confraternity's painting to be, and the version in the Louvre has apparently always been in France, where Leonardo spent his last years as the guest of the French King. In order to support the theory that the Louvre painting is the earlier, an elaborate hypothesis has been formed involving Leonardo delivering the Confraternity's painting, then removing it, selling it to a private client and painting the London version as a substitute. None of this is supported by documentary evidence. What is the Angel telling us? All the evidence points clearly to the fact that the London painting is the earlier by ten years, and that the Louvre painting was created for a different client.

This is supported by the documentary evidence, the stylistic evidence, the symbolic evidence, by basic mechanics and simple logic. The notion that the Louvre Virgin of the Rocks is "the original" and the picture in the National Gallery is a copy made as a substitute has become a statement of provenance for the two artworks, and is repeated without challenge by the British custodians of the painting in the National Gallery. The fabrication that Leonardo sold the original painting in a pique of annoyance over the the small size of the bonus awarded him has been seized by almost every ardent member of the media who has done a story on the exhibition. The hypothesis is simply accepted as fact. Both art historians and the media continue to build upon the hypothesis, searching for symbolism within the paintings to support various theories, while at the same time selectively ignoring iconography that indicates so clearly which painting was done for the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception and which was done for a different client entirely. Presented in these pages is a different answer to the questions of why the two paintings of the Virgin of the Rocks were created and which is the earlier.

Madonna of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci Facts & History 78.3 in × 48.0 in 199 cm × 122 cm Madonna of the Rocks, also called as Virgin of the Rocks, is a Leonardo da Vinci painting left unfinished by the artist. The painting depicts Mary and the child Jesus inside a cave of rocks accompanied by the Angel Gabriel. The scene illustrates the meeting of the child Jesus and the child St. John the Baptist. Mary is shown guiding the child John the Baptist towards Jesus who sits with the angel. There are two versions of the paintings. One sits in the Louvre Museum and the other one in the National Gallery of Art in London. The Louvre version was painted with oil on a 199 x 122 cm panel dated c. 1483 – c. 1486. The second and later version in London was painted with oil on a 189.5 cm × 120 cm panel dated c. 1495 – 1508. In the Louvre museum, Angel Gabriel was pointing his hand towards John the Baptist.

The London version, which is a more mature version but is believed to be not done by da Vinci alone, doesn’t have the hand gesture of the angel. There are other differences in the attributes between the two paintings. The Louvre version, however, is believed to be done mainly by da Vinci. The painting was an altarpiece commissioned by the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception to decorate their chapel in the Church of San Francesco Grande in Milan on April 25, 1483. The commission was for Leonardo to do in collaboration with the de Pedis siblings, Evangelista and Ambrogio, who were assigned to do the embellishment, coloring and retouching of the side panels. Another artist, Giacomo del Maino was assigned to do the framework. Leonardo da Vinci was commissioned to paint the central piece. This painting created a commotion between the artists and the commissioners and the conflict lasted for a long time. Moreover, it has been one of the most intricate religious paintings that stirred intrigues.

2 responses to “Madonna of the Rocks” sarat mohanty Madonna of the Rocks / Virgin of the Rocks Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Virgin of the Rocks / Madonna of the Rocks Leonardo Da Vinci Painting One of Dan Brown's larger blunder sets in his book involves the famous painting of Leonardo Da Vinci called Virgin of the Rocks. The first mistake is that Brown changes the painting's name to Madonna of the Rocks. He does this solely so he can make an anagram. The clue on the Mona Lisa says "So dark the con of man", which Robert goes on and on about, how the church has conned mankind. Really, it is an anagram of "madonna of the rocks". I guess Dan Brown couldn't think up an anagram to go with "Virgin of the Rocks". Canvas Version - Louvre 1483 Wood Version - London 1503 About the Paintings Some people claim the painting is actually a wood base painting and therefore Dan Brown was wrong in describing it as canvas. You need to understand that there are actually TWO versions of this painting out there. The wood base one is the copy that is in London.

You can see above the differences between the two, in the faces of the people and in the baby Jesus and his staff. Leonardo painted the canvas one in 1483. There were contract issues so he painted another one on wood in 1503, MANY years later. The canvas one is the one in the Louvre. So Dan was correct about that. Dan Brown claimed that the painting was redone was because the requesters were "furious" at the first version. Actually it was a pretty boring issue about a contract that had Leonardo redo it. Virgin of the Rocks in the Louvre When I went to see this painting in the Louvre, it was hanging in the main Grand Gallery hallway. In the book, Robert is in near the Mona Lisa in a side room - in the Salle des Etats. The guard has him at gunpoint, when the guard spots Sophie in the same room walking around. In fact, the guard is "a good twenty yards" from the entrance to the room, and can't get a good walkie-talkie reception because of the room's security. At that point Sophie grabs the painting. That would be a trick, since the painting isn't in that room.

It's out in the Grand Gallery. Sophie the Shield Maiden Sophie uses the "Madonna of the Rocks" as a canvas shield to get the guard to drop his gun. Of course this was meant to cause pain and anguish to art lovers everywhere. Specifically, Sophie had just fetched the key out of the back of the frame. She now threatens the guard with the painting's destruction if he doesn't drop his gun. Brown says she picks up this 5' tall painting and wields it. I could strain credibility to think of this woman waving around a 5' tall painting. However, the painting is *really* 6.5' tall and has a HUGE heavy wooden frame. Sophie could hardly have moved it, never mind wielded it like a shield! I snuck a quick photo of the painting while I was at the Louvre. It's hard to get a sense of scale here, but you can see some peoples' reflections in the lower part of the glass of the painting. This is a very large painting. The frame is very solid. You'd need a weight lifter to move this. Jesus and John the Baptist Dan Brown claims that in the painting, the Baby Jesus gets the blessing from the Baby John the Baptist.

The whole thing is silly anyway, to have babies blessing each other that didn't actually meet in "scripture timelines". This is all a fantasy scene. But to discuss the issue, John the Baptist (the baby on the left) is praying while Jesus (the baby on the right) is raising his hand in blessing. In fact, in the second painting, John the Baptist clearly holds his Reed Cross that is associated with him. Dan Brown mixed up the main characters of the painting. I'll note that the reed cross was added in after Leonardo was done with the painting, but that all accepted the addition as a good one. Next, Dan Brown claims that Mary's hand is over John's head, threateningly. Actually Mary's hand is over Jesus' head. The hand is really not threatening at all - it's a normal position found in other paintings. Dan claims that the angel's hand in the first painting is "frightening". Really, the angel is just pointing at John. You see this same pointing gesture in many other paintings. It doesn't look very scary to me. For Dan to see all this horror in a painting about two babies is a bit extreme.

Finally, Dan claims that the redone version of the painting has different positioning than the original. As you can see by comparing them side by side, this is not true. The London version has halos, and wings on the angel. The "reed cross" was painted in later by someone else so is not part of the original painting. In the first painting, the angel is pointing at John to say "look there he is" while in the second the hand is removed so that the halo has a spot to go in. Other than that, they are pretty much the same. Sex Changes Dan Brown states that "nuns" at the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception gave details on the work. Actually, that organization is male-only. On the other hand, note that the angel on the right, Uriel, is supposedly male. That angel looks pretty feminine to me. Visitor Comment - Thank you for your interesting and helpful critique on the Da Vinci Code. One thing I was a little confused about when I read the book and had a look at the Madonna of the Rocks was how to tell the two children apart.

Dan Brown seems to assume that the child on the left, whom Mary is touching, is Jesus, and the one on the right, further from Mary, is John. If I understood your comments correctly, you assume that the child (on the right) who is blessing the other is Jesus, and the child with his hands clasped in a humble, prayerful attitude (on the left), is John. How do we know which child Leonardo intended to be which? (Incidentally, I agree with you on the subject of Brown's other comments on the apparent violence and anger depicted by Mary and the angel's hands.) My Response - Yes, Dan definitely confused the two children. The main issue is that the painting was commissioned as depicting Jesus blessing John. It's sort of clear looking at the two kids which one is blessing which other one. Also the second one had John the Baptist holding the staff which is traditionally associated with him. That's sort of a giveaway, sort of like showing Judas with silver in his hand. It's a symbology that everyone at the time would have understood. Yes, Leonardo didn't put the reed cross in himself, but everyone who saw the painting knew it was John and understood when it was added in.

There would have been a huge furor if this famous painting had been altered in a way that fundamentally changed its meaning. Leonardo da Vinci Paints the First Madonna of the Rocks | World History Project 1483 to 1486 Leonardo da Vinci Paints the First Madonna of the Rocks The Virgin of the Rocks (sometimes the Madonna of the Rocks) is the usual title used for both of two different paintings with almost identical compositions, which are at least largely by Leonardo da Vinci. They are in the Louvre, Paris, and the National Gallery, London. This version is in the Louvre, painted around 1483-1486, or earlier. Most authorities agree that the work is very largely by Leonardo, and is the earlier of the two works. The fine brush work and use of chiaroscuro, or contrast between light and dark, are considered characteristic of many of Leonardo's works. It is about 8cm taller than the London version. The first record of this picture is in 1625, when it was in the French royal collection.

Source: Wikipedia Added by: Rob Brent On April 25 1483 Leonardo and the brothers Ambrogio and Evangelista de Predis were commissioned by the Milanese Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception to paint a work celebrating the Immaculate Conception for their new chapel. The contract survives, as does much of the documentation from the later disputes over it. There had already been a previous contract in 1480 with Giacomo del Maino, which had evidently not been completed; among the work stipulated in the second contract was the completion and gilding of various carvings for the wooden framework of the altarpiece (none known to survive). Three paintings were stipulated, a central Virgin and Child and two side panels with angels, described only in the earlier contract with del Maino. These panels are also in the National Gallery, with different provenances from the main were painted entirely by the brothers de Predis, according to both modern art historians and a contemporary statement by the brothers in the legal dispute All the work was to be completed by the Feast of the Conception (December 8) 1483, but this did not happen.

At some later date the legal dispute began; the main issue being that the main painting was unfinished, and Leonardo had left Milan. Meanwhile the de Predis brothers had completed their portion of the work, and wanted payment. The dispute was settled on April 27, 1506, with the requirement that should Leonardo return to Milan within two years he should complete the painting, and receive further specified sums beyond those in the original contract. This appears to have happened, as a sum was paid to him in 1507. The surviving documentation casts no light on the existence of two versions, nor does it give any support to claims that the clients were unhappy with the subject or treatment of the paintings. At what point the first version was diverted, or if it was at all, remains unclear, and the subject of many theories. On stylistic grounds some writers, including Martin Davies, feel that 1483 is too late a date for the Louvre version; for the commission Leonardo may have simply repeated a composition he had already produced. Alternatively, the Louvre version may have been painted for the confraternity soon after the commission, and then sold to another buyer.

Source: Wikipedia The spectacular Grande Galerie in the Louvre plays an important role in the novel The Da Vinci Code, providing the setting for the beginning of the story. Far more remarkable than the parquet flooring with its chevron patterns mentioned in the book is the collection of Italian paintings. Four of the five paintings by Leonardo da Vinci in the Louvre are on display here. The Da Vinci Code analyzes The Virgin of the Rocks (which Sophie Neveu removes from the wall) in a new and subversive way. It suggests that Mary holds in her left hand the invisible head of Mary Magdalene, whose neck is being symbolically sliced by the gesture of the Archangel Uriel on the right. Leonardo was thus supposedly showing the Church’s conspiracy against Christ’s companion during the early centuries. This far-fetched interpretation of the painting might have been inspired by the work of Bernardino Luini just to the left: Salome Receiving the Head of Saint John the Baptist.

In reality, Mary’s mysterious gesture relates to traditional religious iconography: Mary is the mother of Jesus, but she is also the incarnation of the Church, the “house.” In the painting, therefore, she seems to be covering the head of her Son with her left hand, as if with a roof. The Da Vinci Code thus transformed a gesture of protection into a metaphorical representation of murder. This powerful literary effect is a travesty of art history.

Question: Who painted two versions of 'The Madonna On The Rocks', between 1483 and 1508?
Answer: LEONARDO DI VINCI